What's the catch with this?

[RoveyDoveyGrovey]

Hello,

Im a total newbie, im interested in buying a scope with the aim of doing astrophotography. I've been looking around a fair bit and i'm starting to focus towards the Celestron C8 XLT and a NEQ6 Pro mount with GOTO, over £2000 for both. However it's going to be a while before im in a position to buy anything, which im taking as a good thing, it'll stop me from rushing in. Anyway, I was looking on ebay and I found this, SKYWATCHER EXPLORER 300PDS NEQ6 Pro SynScan (222/854) on eBay (end time 22-Feb-11 16:23:07 GMT)

A 12" Newtonian reflector with NEQ6 Pro GOTO mount for £1399. That's about £700 cheaper. I know it's a different type scope from the Celestron but is it £700 worse? Considering the mount can cost £1000 on it's own, is this a cheap and nasty scope on top of a decent mount?

NB:I hope to start taking photos of the moon and planets and then move onto DSO's

[John]

It's a newtonian on an equatorial mount. Different design of scope altogether from the C8 that you were looking at. No catch but a huge scope to handle - too much for many I've heard !.

The 12" aperture will mean that it can see fainter objects and resolve more detail than the C8 so it's performance will actually be better.

Do do lots of research before rushing into buying anything - there are loads of excellent options in that price bracket but they need careful consideration. I would also plan to buy from a proper astro dealer such as First Light Optics rather than though an unknown e.bay retailer.

Welcome to SGL by the way !.

[Astro_Baby]

Nope - the 300 will be a good scope BUT a lot of these get sold 2nd hand. The reason being is they are too big for most people. Lots of beginners dive in and buy the biggest thing they can see then find out that its completely beyond them in terms of size, weight and even complexity.

I just acquired a 10" scope off someone and even a 10" scope is a monster. Your talking about a tube thats so heavy I cant lift it onto its mount solo.

These sorts of rigs are best left to those who have a permanant observatory set-up.

If astrophotography is your thing then get a copy of 'Making Every Photon Count' before you buy a single piece of equipment.

Astrophotography is a science all its own and a lot of stuff is counter intuitive.

Personally (and I dont do astro imaging) I'd doubt a 300P would make for a good scope for imaging. It takes the mount too close to its limits in weight handling but doubtless someone who does imaging will have an input on this.

[RoveyDoveyGrovey]

Thanks for the replies,

hahaha yeah i really want to buy the biggest scope possible, might have to buy a forklift with it.

I got the 'Making Every Photon Count' book the other day and have started reading, very interesting.

So this isn't necessarily a poor quality scope, interesting. I did wonder whether it will be too big for the mount though.

[Astro_Baby]

Astro imaging needs the steadiest mount available. Theres two way sof acheiving that - geat a wahacking great big scope and be prepared to cough up around the £4k mark for the mount. Or get a mount like the EQ6 which is pretty much the workhorse of the amatuer community and have a smaller scope.

I think before you spend on a 300 you should at least see it - I have seen so many beginners rush into this and find even a 10" is a huge piece of tin.

I could reel the dimesnions off to you but until you see one of these things in the flesh so to speak its hard to get an idea of what that phsyical dimesnions equate to in a 3D object.

For imaging the largest possible scope isnt necessarily what you want either. Plensts dont require it and deep sky imagers tend to use small fast refractors from what I have seen on here.

I have seen at least 3x 300s get sold quite recently 2nd hand and a few 250s as well. Mine might well be sold off depending on the outcome of a possible deal for something else. Even I started to fool myself that a 10" was doable. Its just too heavy and by the time its saddled uyp with a Moonlite focusr, a fan, rotating ring arrangement it will be way too heavy for my EQ6 mount and way too heavy for me as well.

Its probably being sold cheap cos no one wants it - size you see - very few people can cope with the size of it.

There are two dictums of astronomey - aperture is king (I dont happen to agree with that because in my mind its location which is king).

The second is 'the best telescope is one you will use' a few trips out to the garden to heft a 300 onto its mount will take the shine off the hobby rather quickly I suspect.

[John]

For imaging deep sky objects much smaller scopes are preferred - but on big mounts !.

There is always a conflict between what's good for visual astronomy and what's good for imaging. Many folks end up buying 2 or 3 scopes because of this. It's really not possible to find a single scope that excels at everything.

Skywatcher and Celestron are owned by the same company now and made by the same manufacturer in China so their quality is about the same.

[jam1e1]

FWIW you also have to consider ease of setup....

I'm relatively new to this too - initially would have gone for that sort of setup - i own an eq5 (manual) and eq6 pro (goto) mounts - the eq5 gets 90% use the Eq6 10% literally due to 'grab and go' ability.

on scope size, absolutely agree with above comments - recently got a 250pds as upgrade from the mount - the handling difference is quite considerable - i.e. the 200p was easy to put on mount, 250pds is ok but got to be careful not to drop as its not just a case of one handed lift!

As before have a read and consider what you want vs afford vs useability. Final point - after 8" scopes the light grasp vs apeture is non linear (google this for more detail) and consider if in light polluted area too.

Good luck either way - just few points to consider from someone who was in similar boat

[RoveyDoveyGrovey]

Ok, one of the things i've found while researching astrophotography and it's quite obvious when you think about it, is that a sturdy mount is very important, the last thing I want to do is buy a scope that's just going to wobble around because it's too heavy for the mount, and 4K on a mount is bit far out of my budget. I just looked at the dimensions of the scope and it appears to be about 1.5 meters long that is rather massive. I would like something that I can transport as I live in a town and it's hard to see any stars even with a clear sky.

It's funny, I started looking at a £50 scope then I read a bit and started looking around £1000 and now im looking at about £3000 including camera etc.. with autoguiding a future investment. I won't be buying anything for probably over a year, I dread to think what i'll be looking at by then. At least i'll know im serious if im still looking.

[rowan46]

in 12 months time there may be a few eq6's coming on the market as skywatcher is going to be introducing a larger mount

[RoveyDoveyGrovey]

in 12 months time there may be a few eq6's coming on the market as skywatcher is going to be introducing a larger mount

That's interesting to know. Would you say it's less risky buying a secondhand mount than a secondhand scope? So long as they haven't had some monster of a scope sitting on it the whole time.

[pvaz]

I actually think more things can go wrong on a 2/h mount. It haves motors and electronics which are usually the weak link.

My advice is read the book and check the imaging sections, see the signatures to know what people use for their photos. You'll soon find an 80mm APO refractor is the most used scope for the best photos you see there. I' not an imager but I think that must mean something...

[TheBFG]

Hmm surpising no one has suggested going to your local astomomy club and having a gander at whats out there. Especially if you have a while to decide

[Astro_Baby]

Heres a pic of me with a 200 scope on an HEQ5.

A 250 is about 25% bigger and a 300 about 50% bigger. To put that into perspective the small scope in the pic is a Skywatcher 130 (5") the big one is a 200 (8") so imagine the 300 is very roughly as big against the 200 as the 200 is to the 130 in the pic and you start to get the idea.

Even a 250 requires 3x5kg counterweights to balance it up on an EQ6.

If you have to travel to view then you really need to think about portability very seriously and it may be imaging is not viable for you depending on various factors.

If I take the 200 out with me (I live in a flat in light pollution city) then I am looking at taking the following;

Scope tube - eights about 13kg, approximately 1 meter long and 9" wide.

Mount head - approximate weight of 15kg and about the size of a large attache case.

Tripod legs - approximately 7kg and 1 meter long

3 Counterweights - 5kg each so a total of 15kg.

(note - if this were the 250 on an EQ6 you could add another 25% on the weight of all of that lot).

Now you have to add in some stuff....

Power tank - weight aroun 1kg and the size of small car battery

Accesory case - contains cables, finder scope, red ligh torches and general odds and ends required to set up with. Attache case size and weighs about 3 kg

Eyepiece case - contains eyepieces and filters. Size of an attache case and weighs in at about 5kg

Thats just to observe with

Its one of the reasons I dont do imaging. If I did I'd need an additional scope for guiding, cameras, PC, more cables, more power and longer set-up times.

No prizes for guessing why my most used scope isn't the 200. Its my TAL 100RS on a manual mount where the all up weight is probably no more than 20kg.

I dont want to put a downer on you but if your having to be portable I really think you need to think some of this through because a big scope looks jolly nice on a web page but looks somewhat less fun when you have to cart it about and store it.

[RoveyDoveyGrovey]

Yep, it's definitely something I need to think harder about. I had a look at some of the photos other members have taken, there are some real stunners, it seems the Celestron 80mmED refractor is very popular and has taken some very nice pictures. It's interesting to see how different people with the same equipment take photos with very varying results, I guess experience and patience are a very important factor, but this does make the decision harder, do I need to be a genius with a certain scope to get a good result?

One thing that has intrigued me is the difference between planetry and DSO pictures. I have seen some unbelievable pictures of galaxies with lots of detail and colour, but very few pictures of say Mars with the same detail and sharpness. Considering the galaxies are many light years away I would expect the opposite results. I can only assume that the ratio of brightness&size/distance is far more favourable with galaxies than planets but i'd love to hear a better explanation.

[umadog]

You don't need a 12" to do AP. You can get wonderful shots with an 8" or even a 4". I've seen some really, really, stunning photos taken through 4" refractors. Such scopes will be much easier to handle and you'll have more cash left over for imaging gear.

[AttackFerret]

Basically boils down to the fact that planets are absolutely miniscule in comparisson to DSO's to be honest.

[Zakalwe]

Yep, it's definitely something I need to think harder about. I had a look at some of the photos other members have taken, there are some real stunners, it seems the Celestron 80mmED refractor is very popular and has taken some very nice pictures. It's interesting to see how different people with the same equipment take photos with very varying results, I guess experience and patience are a very important factor, but this does make the decision harder, do I need to be a genius with a certain scope to get a good result?

One thing that has intrigued me is the difference between planetry and DSO pictures. I have seen some unbelievable pictures of galaxies with lots of detail and colour, but very few pictures of say Mars with the same detail and sharpness. Considering the galaxies are many light years away I would expect the opposite results. I can only assume that the ratio of brightness&size/distance is far more favourable with galaxies than planets but i'd love to hear a better explanation.

Galaxies and nebulas are MUCH larger than planets. The Orion nebula is about 24 light years across......that's 144 TRILLION miles.

In comparison, Mars is about 4200 miles across. Yes, it is a lot nearer, but the details are a lot smaller, way below the resolution of a back yard 'scope.

[Neilius]

Heres a pic of me with a 200 scope on an HEQ5.

A 250 is about 25% bigger and a 300 about 50% bigger. To put that into perspective the small scope in the pic is a Skywatcher 130 (5") the big one is a 200 (8") so imagine the 300 is very roughly as big against the 200 as the 200 is to the 130 in the pic and you start to get the idea.

Even a 250 requires 3x5kg counterweights to balance it up on an EQ6.

If you have to travel to view then you really need to think about portability very seriously and it may be imaging is not viable for you depending on various factors.

If I take the 200 out with me (I live in a flat in light pollution city) then I am looking at taking the following;

Scope tube - eights about 13kg, approximately 1 meter long and 9" wide.

Mount head - approximate weight of 15kg and about the size of a large attache case.

Tripod legs - approximately 7kg and 1 meter long

3 Counterweights - 5kg each so a total of 15kg.

(note - if this were the 250 on an EQ6 you could add another 25% on the weight of all of that lot).

Now you have to add in some stuff....

Power tank - weight aroun 1kg and the size of small car battery

Accesory case - contains cables, finder scope, red ligh torches and general odds and ends required to set up with. Attache case size and weighs about 3 kg

Eyepiece case - contains eyepieces and filters. Size of an attache case and weighs in at about 5kg

Thats just to observe with

Its one of the reasons I dont do imaging. If I did I'd need an additional scope for guiding, cameras, PC, more cables, more power and longer set-up times.

No prizes for guessing why my most used scope isn't the 200. Its my TAL 100RS on a manual mount where the all up weight is probably no more than 20kg.

I dont want to put a downer on you but if your having to be portable I really think you need to think some of this through because a big scope looks jolly nice on a web page but looks somewhat less fun when you have to cart it about and store it.

I'm glad of this post. I would 'rep' you if I could, but this forum board doesn't have that feature!

My next scope (to be bought by the end of this year) is going to be a 200p Skywatcher - I didn't realise the size of the thing, but it'll still be manageable for my needs.

[RoveyDoveyGrovey]

I guess when I first look up and see a tiny dot of a planet next to a beautiful big galaxy I'll realise just how naive a question that was.

I think i'm erring towards maybe 1 big scope that stays at home and one small portable scope. I could get that 12" one and a small refractor for about the same cost as the C8 I was looking at. I think I need to speak to someone from around here to find out what kind of views I can expect from a back garden to see if the big one is worth it.

[umadog]

A 12" truss tube Dob is quite portable if you have a car. It certainly wouldn't have to be a stay-at-home scope.